cashncarry 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (40) comment rss

  • On the post: Jeff Bezos’ Latest Gambit To Bring Back Trust In Media: Silence Editorial Cartoonists Who Call Out Your Sniveling Compliance

    cashncarry ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2025 @ 02:00am

    Shoulda listened to Babra

    And thus the Streisand Effect kicks in. More people will see the cartoon now than would ever have seen it had the silly man not tried to suppress it. It will probably have the distinction of being taught in universities and may we'll come to occupy a place of honor in the Smithsonian.

  • On the post: YouTube TV Raises Prices Again, Days After Hinting It Wouldn’t

    cashncarry ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2024 @ 05:07am

    Well, they've done a fantastic job of selling it then. The sole take-home message I've received each time they've tried to inveigle me into subscribing is that it would be ad-free. Almost as stellar a job as Apple has done with thus far failing to convince me that AppleTV+ offers any more than fourth fifths of diddly-squat. Had Prime for the shipping but that went beyond the enshittification line and got cancelled. I'm so over being milked. The answer is no.

  • On the post: YouTube TV Raises Prices Again, Days After Hinting It Wouldn’t

    cashncarry ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2024 @ 10:47pm

    What content?

    I'm puzzled. I'm not a YouTube "subscriber" (in the sense of paying them any money) but I'm a "watcher" (in the sense of using their app and having an account that I sign into, and numerous channels that I "subscribe" to). Everything I watch on YouTube is content that is produced by people who do it all themselves and just upload the finished work to YouTube. As far as I can see, other than paying those content creators some fraction of revenue earned from ads, Google has zero costs of production. And, for that revenue fraction, as far as I can see Google sets the terms on a take it or leave it basis. There would seem to be no way for content creators to pass on "increasing costs of production" to Google so what the actual fuck are they talking about?

  • On the post: Hertz Continues To Be Hertz, Threatens Customer With Arrest For Using Too Many Of His ‘Unlimited’ Miles

    cashncarry ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2024 @ 01:25pm

    Homonyms

    astounding feet of racking up
    Feat? I agree with @btr1701 - I think this might be one area where Australian consumers might have better protection. Down here you would just say "I do not authorise you to charge the amount to my credit card" and walk out the door, at which point any charge becomes "unauthorised" and a raft of consumer protections kick in, starting with you not having to pay a single cent while the dispute is sorted out, and likely ending with Hertz having to pay both hefty fines and chargeback fees. If the situation really is as reported here, Hertz would be on a hiding to nothing. That doesn't stop me from being gob-smacked by the distance travelled. Maybe this dude had a previous bad experience with Hertz and placed the car on a dyno just to prove a point. It's been a good 20 years since I've had to rent a car but, back then, Hertz was my go-to company. Never any problems at either end of the rental process. Just worked. Sad to see how far the mighty can fall down Enshittification Ravine.

  • On the post: Apple Snuck In Code That Automatically Reboots Idle IPhones And Cops Are Not Happy About It

    cashncarry ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2024 @ 03:58am

    Read it again

    “The reboot timer is not tied to any network or charging functions and only tied to inactivity of the device since last lock [sic],”
    not tied to any network activity As I interpret this and other articles on the topic, the only real hope that someone who doesn't know the passcode has (whether it's an investigator or a criminal) is to obtain a phone in an unlocked state and keep it that way until exfiltration is complete. So, grabbing a phone while someone is using it, or being in a position to compel biometrics if the phone is in AFU state so it can be unlocked would seem to be about it. If it's locked but in AFU then you have to hope your "cracking toolkit" will work before the phone reboots into BFU state. No more hanging onto a phone you can't currently crack until an exploit is developed.

  • On the post: Apple Snuck In Code That Automatically Reboots Idle IPhones And Cops Are Not Happy About It

    cashncarry ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2024 @ 01:45pm

    Repeating the mistake?

    "This means iPhones running the latest iOS version will need to be treated like time bombs by investigators. The clock will start running the moment they remove the phones from the networks they use."
    Hasn't the article just been at pains to explain that the timed reboot has nothing to do with data commmunications? Would it not be more correct to say "The clock will start running the moment they seize a phone"?

  • On the post: No, Section 230 Doesn’t ‘Circumvent’ The First Amendment – But This Harvard Article Circumvents Reality

    cashncarry ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2024 @ 01:54pm

    Magical thinking

    I suspect the scat-for-brains reasoning is as simplistic as this: (1) I've seen something on the Internet which I regard as "bad"; (2) I've heard that Section 230 is "the 26 words that created the Internet"; therefore (3) Repealing Section 230 will magically uncreate the Internet and make all the "bad" things go away.

  • On the post: Public Records Show Cops Are Obscuring Their Use Of Facial Recognition Tech In Criminal Cases

    cashncarry ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2024 @ 03:10pm

    You should care

    The only situation in which facial recognition is reasonably reliable is if you have a photo of someone (unknown) committing a crime plus a photo of someone you suspect of committing that crime, and you ask the technology for a probabilistic match. Where facial recognition should never be used is how it's depicted in TV shows: the investigator has a photo of someone (unknown) committing a crime and "runs" that photo against a database looking for matches. It's a dangerous misuse of statistics and it's an example of the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" because the approach focuses on one piece of evidence (the photo of the crime taking place) rather than how the evidence applies to the suspect (like, is there any other evidence showing that the person being accused was even in the state at the time). Every statistical test has four possible outcomes: positive, negative, false positive, false negative. "Running" looks for the highest probability matches while discounting the false cases, including the somewhat critical question as to whether the actual perpetrator is even in the database in the first place. It's a very dangerous genie and it should be put back in its bottle.

  • On the post: UK Study Suggests Legal System Needs To Account For ‘Sexual Privacy’ In Copyright Cases

    cashncarry ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2024 @ 04:27pm

    Will no-one think of the couch's privacy!

  • On the post: Chinese Access To AT&T/Verizon Wiretap System Shows Why We Cannot Backdoor Encryption

    cashncarry ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2024 @ 02:36pm

    That's not what he said

    I think you might have misread the article. I think the argument Mike was making was that the people demanding "lawful access" to encrypted systems (via back-doors) are the same people who already have "lawful access" to telecommunications systems (wiretaps). They have been claiming that the wiretapping system has never been hacked as a justification for why they could also be trusted with back-doors into encrypted systems. That "never hacked" claim has just been proven to be false so their entire argument is destroyed.

  • On the post: Amazon Ratchets Up Enshittifying Prime Video After Public Shrugs At Initial Ads

    cashncarry ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2024 @ 07:15pm

    Ads on Amazon

    Thad would win his wager. And Beer has it exactly right too. My household only has Prime for the shipping. We set it up on AppleTV and watched a couple of things but it's been sitting there unused, unwatched and unloved for well over a year because it's basically effing terrible as a streaming product. I'd love to see "hours streamed" metrics because, if my household is in any way representative, the numbers would be heading for the drink. Probably selling estimated eyeballs that ain't actually watching. A fool and his advertising money are soon parted. As to "customers didn't complain" you actually have to care about something before you'll raise the effort to moan. I care so little about the streaming product with the in-ya-face penis-shaped logo that I wouldn't even notice if it stopped working.

  • On the post: Newsom’s Unconstitutional AI Bills Draw First Amendment Lawsuit Within Minutes Of Signing

    cashncarry ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2024 @ 04:47pm

    Three strikes for unconstitutional laws

    One of the big problems with this "all fur, no knickers" style of performance law-making is there is no actual penalty for breaking the Constitution and infringing on citizens' rights. The culture-war warriors keep passing Go, keep collecting $200, and move right on to the next bit of stupidity. Maybe what we need is for some politically-savvy activists in a State that has Citizen Initiated Referendums to propose a "three strikes" bill for lawmakers and governors. Any lawmaker who votes for, and any governor who signs into law, an Act which gets tossed for being unconstitutional gets a strike. Three strikes and you're recalled and out of politics. At the very least it should see lawmakers and governors getting solid advice from competent constitutional lawyers on exactly how close they are sailing to the constitutional winds before they place their own jobs at risk. Every culture-war-inspired bill which doesn't make it through to signing would save taxpayers megabucks (or maybe that should be magabucks).

  • On the post: Newsom’s Unconstitutional AI Bills Draw First Amendment Lawsuit Within Minutes Of Signing

    cashncarry ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2024 @ 04:30pm

    Common law

    I think you'll find the US is a common law country. Common law simply means judges make decisions which establish precedents, which courts are then bound to follow unless overturned by legislation or a higher court.

  • On the post: Australian Police Open Snitch Portal For Drivers To Upload Dash Cam Footage Of Moving Violations

    cashncarry ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2024 @ 10:15pm

    Instant karma

    Tim mentioned DashcamAustralia - they have a sub-thread called "Instant Karma" which is always a hoot. Some twerp tailgates or cuts off what they think is some other Joe Citizen in some common-as-muck model of car, only to have it explode into blue/red flashing lights, plus the gales of laughter from the occupants of the car with the dash cam recording the whole thing. No doubt being able to issue traffic tickets from the comfort of their own desks gives the Australian Federal Police more time to emulate what I so often read on TechDirt about US cops - racial profiling.

  • On the post: Journalist Hit With $5,500 Judgment By Italian Court For Mocking Far-Right Politician’s Height

    cashncarry ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2024 @ 05:14pm

    Polly Mocking

    Isn't this a straightforward case for reference to the European Court of Human Rights for a breach of article 10 of the convention (freedom of expression)? Sure, part 2 of that has a whole lot of weaslegalese about limitations necessary in a democratic society but I would've thought any law that purports to permit this kind of stupidity would be found defective on its face. Heck, I live in the shortest street in my town. It's so short that when I give my address, the other person will invariably remark, "Oh, the short street", always totally oblivious to the fact that there is a "Short Street" which, in true oxymoronic form, is one of the longer streets in the town. Do I get to bitch about being "length shamed" or would that, just perhaps, be placing myself in prime position to be the butt of many-a-joke?

  • On the post: Vermont Man Who Cursed At, Flipped Off Cop Scores Settlement From The State

    cashncarry ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2024 @ 12:45am

    Really good idea

    Actually, I think that's a really good idea. Malpractice insurance drives bad doctors and lawyers out of those professions so it might drive out bad cops too. We might even see insurance companies requiring cops to attend annual refresher courses on what they can and can't do, maybe even resulting in less of "the more ignorant the cop, the greater the chance of getting qualified immunity just for being the dumbest prick on the block."

  • On the post: Cops Battered A Man Suffering A Seizure, Cooked Up Criminal Charges To Cover Up Their Actions

    cashncarry ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2024 @ 12:08am

    There might have been a different outcome in Australia

    In her excellent book Becoming Abolitionists Derecka Purnell makes a very compelling argument for concluding that police should only ever be involved when there's strong evidence that a crime has been committed. Regardless of the amount of training they receive, expecting every single police officer in every single police department to be able to recognise, diagnose and handle medical or mental health events either competently or compassionately or intelligently, is an exercise in futility. That's just not the mindset of the average cop. Interestingly, I don't think the sequence of events reported here in Bruce Frankel's case would have occurred in Australia. When we call "triple-zero" (the Australian equivalent of 911) the operator asks exactly one question: "do you want Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance?" If you ask for Ambulance, you get connected to a paramedic who guides you through initial diagnosis and first aid, and assesses whether an ambulance should be dispatched. I'm not saying that that first-contact paramedic might not use their own judgement to call police (eg hearing sounds of domestic violence). Neither am I saying that paramedics arriving on the scene might not similarly use their own judgement to call police (eg a dead body and blood everywhere). But, absent some indication that a call to triple-zero was for something other than a medical emergency, it's presumed to be a medical event. Calls to triple-zero don't see police elbowing their way into and otherwise interfering with medical decisions and procedures. I don't want to suggest that Australia is some paradise where police are never involved in medical misadventures. One recent example is from November 2023 where a 95 year old 43kg (6.8 stone) grandmother with dementia was tased. She lived in a nursing home. News reports said she was wandering around on her walking frame holding a steak knife, possibly looking for a midnight snack. Police were called. Rather than just calmly taking the knife away from her, feeding her, and putting her back to bed, she wound up dead. The cop has been charged with manslaughter. The first question I asked myself was why the hell did nursing home staff feel the need to call police? I have yet to see any media reports containing a satisfactory answer. I wonder the same thing here. Why were police even involved in Bruce Frankel's case in the first place? Is it routine for a 911 call asking for paramedics to also result in the dispatch of police? Perhaps that's the thing that needs to change.

  • On the post: Nigerian Woman Faces Jail Time For Facebook Review Of Tomato Sauce

    cashncarry ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2024 @ 09:55pm

    I sense your apoplexy

    So pretty standard fair fare for a review-type post on Facebook. And the claim that the company is purusing pursuing the civil case

  • On the post: Utah Delays Constitutional Reckoning Over Its Social Media Law By Promising To Repeal & Replace It

    cashncarry ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2024 @ 11:53pm

    Culture Warrioring

    Ah, the verb "to warrior". I'll add that to my lexicon.

  • On the post: New Jersey Is The Latest To Push A Harmful Moral Panic ‘Think Of The Kids’ Social Media Bill

    cashncarry ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2023 @ 03:12pm

    When I read articles like this (where it's clear legislators just refuse to see both the evidence placed in front of them and the likely constitutional fate of their efforts, all of which the author puts down to "moral panic") I often wonder if a lot of this legislative stupidity might not be explained by cognitive impairment as a result of the people pushing the bills having contracted COVID19? Googling the topic finds a fair number of studies such as this. We (society) might be better off if we required all those in positions of power to either prove, at least annually, they have never had the disease or, if they have, that they suffer no ongoing cognitive impairment as a result. Sort of like porn actors having to prove they don't have AIDS or other STDs, or drivers having to prove they aren't under the influence. I kinda like the idea of legislators having to prove, both routinely and frequently, that they aren't actually batshit crazy.